Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
House_of_Luxembourg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 154
Reply with quote  #1 
Assuming the United States doesn't descend into total domestic barbarism(leaving aside US foreign barbarism), is this even be a remote possibility, for the next 25-75 years?
Maybe we monarchists shouldn't be so pessimistic. Perhaps if we had a more cohesive restauration plan, we could develop a serious movement toward the return of the British Monarchy to the US, and it could one day be achieve. Or maybe...

13221494_10153554910542967_8765684863636081709_n.jpg


__________________
"With God's help it will never be that a Bohemian king would run from a fight!"
- John the Blind
(according to an account in the Cronica ecclesiae pragensis Benesii Krabice de Weitmile)

ECH WUNN
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #2 
Never going to happen. With the way things are going in the UK I will be surprised if Britain has a monarch 20 years from now.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,517
Reply with quote  #3 
The EU referendum shows enough people in Britain still believe in their nation and its monarchy.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #4 
I'm no delusional optimist, but I think the Monarchy will still be with us in 20 years time (2036), under either an 87-year-old Charles III or a 54-year-old William V, with Prince George a dashing popular 23-year-old world's most eligible bachelor and Princess Charlotte a beautiful 21-year-old princess, though how tolerable Britain will be for many of the sort of people who have traditionally supported the Monarchy is another question.
governor_general

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 30
Reply with quote  #5 
I think you would have more of a chance at the creation of an American Crown who's sovereign just happens to be the Monarch of 16 other realms than you would with restoring the British Monarchy to America , just a thought [smile]
__________________
"long may we say god save the Queen , because nothing will save the governor general"
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I'm no delusional optimist, but I think the Monarchy will still be with us in 20 years time (2036), under either an 87-year-old Charles III or a 54-year-old William V, with Prince George a dashing popular 23-year-old world's most eligible bachelor and Princess Charlotte a beautiful 21-year-old princess, though how tolerable Britain will be for many of the sort of people who have traditionally supported the Monarchy is another question.


Demographics don't bode well for Britain being British in 20 years. And there is no way America would accept being a commonwealth realm. Not only do demographics rule that out out but so does the constitution and American history. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said when questioned about a restoration of the Romanian crown as a stabilizing influence; "the US doesn't do kings". The US is against monarchy even when it makes sense, General MacArthur being a notable exception.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #7 

Britain is still 87% white. While I am concerned about demographics, the astonishing changes in the British population (whether we like them or not) do not in themselves mean the Monarchy will be gone in 20 years or even 50 years. For one thing, actual republicans are almost all white--and their numbers haven't much budged in decades.


It is perfectly legitimate to dislike the way Britain has changed over past few decades, including demographically, but it seems to me that there is no reason why the Monarchy could not continue to reign over a less and less traditionally British society for quite awhile yet. Many non-whites and non-Christians support the Monarchy. The British Monarchy is one of the most flexible and adaptable institutions that has ever existed. That means it can adapt to developments traditionalists do not at all like. The Monarchy is probably more popular today than it was in 1917 or the 1860s or the late Georgian era or the 1640s, when Britain was racially homogeneous and overwhelmingly Christian. I'm not saying this to be politically correct, but to make what I think is an accurate observation.

I agree that the USA is highly unlikely to ever return to any sort of Crown.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #8 
I agree the monarchy is more popular today than it has been for a very long time. I do wonder how deep-rooted some of that popularity is, though. Some of it seems to have a certain celebrity aspect to it, and I don't trust that kind of popularity to weather bad times well. I wouldn't even trust it to weather a lack of celebrity appeal amongst the royal family. We can trust, somewhat, to inertia and the lack of popular alternatives to keep the monarchy safe if such conditions arise, at least if there is no drastic change in basic political background.

The monarchy has shown a great ability to adapt to a changing society, but I can't help but think this sort of adaptation cannot be indefinite. Monarchy seems to require some deference to tradition and some recognition of limits to egalitarianism, for example.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #9 
The Duchess of Cambridge and her children are never going to not have celebrity appeal.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #10 
Perhaps, though it is entirely possible that something like the period of the late 80s and 90s occurs again.
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #11 
The Queen herself is immensely popular. Prince George is quite photogenic and seems very at ease in public situations. In a Britain that was overwhelmingly British any threats to the throne would be insignificant but that isn't the case. If, in fact, 13% of the population of the UK is non-White, and considering that Britain is the native land of the British (English, Welsh, Scots, Ulster), that is a HUGE percentage. And mass immigration continues. Now what percentage of the White population is non-British? What would be their emotional connection to the monarchy? Take in to account the republicans, independence-minded Scots and the Irish Catholics in Ulster and the future is not rosy. The mayor of London made a statement the other day that migrants should not assimilate to their new countries but remain true to their original cultures and homelands.

Now, considering that monarchs reign, they do not rule, and must survive based on the goodwill of both the public and the politicians, I do not see much of a future for any European monarchies, sadly. There must be a "tribal" connection between the sovereign and his people for a monarchy to have a lasting hold on his people. There is no longer an expectation among the public nor the politicians that a monarch is necessary, even if only ceremonially, as there was even just 100 years ago.

The King of Jordon was wise in marrying a Palestinian woman, considering the demographics of his nation. On the other hand did any of you see the investiture of King Philip of Spain? Notice how the Catalonian and Basque politicians were grimacing and showing their displeasure during the entire ceremony? Quite frankly I thought the King of Norway's recent speech wreaked of desperation to make himself relevant. But then who knows what the future holds although I suspect the Japanese Imperial family's circle of peers will grow smaller by mid-century.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #12 
I think 87% trumps 13% by a fair margin; 600% and change, actually. I don't know of any comparative surveys, but as royalcello already pointed out it is a mistake to assume that Britain's non-white population is monolithically opposed to the monarchy, which has plenty of warm supporters among it. And so far, meaning post-Dark Ages, it has always been a mistake to assume that monarchy will not endure in these islands, or I suppose I should say this island since the largest part of the other one went in a different direction. I believe it will continue to endure and even flourish for as long as can reasonably be predicted.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #13 
I think it would also be wrong to be complacent about the monarchy and its future. There are times, such as during the Civil War and Interregnum, when the monarchy relied on the devoted support and sacrifice of those most loyal to it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #14 
Best to save your gloom and doom until you need it, I always feel. Who can say anything about anything with certainty once you get beyond the immediate future? Right now though the monarchy is in good shape, with doubtless a bit of a rough ride to be expected at the next change of reign but that will be got through, and there is nothing on the horizon beyond it to cause alarm. Actually I don't think even that event will go nearly as badly as some folk despondently (a small minority gloatingly) anticipate. And the whole point about that one interruption in our otherwise unbroken monarchical history is that enough feeling for the monarchy remained to bring it back soon after the Tyrant's passing, and even when James II and VII proved such a disaster no one seems to have even contemplated a different system. A different monarch (OK, two monarchs) was thought quite sufficient.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #15 
And James II & VII probably would have been tolerated had his second wife not had a son. A favourite counterfactual fantasy of mine, which I like to combine with Anne's son William (1689-1700) reaching adulthood: an smooth undisputed Anglican succession with no interregnum.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.